| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew McMillan <andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, Matthew Schumacher <matt(dot)s(at)aptalaska(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin |
| Date: | 2005-07-29 13:23:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20050729132319.GA13680@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 03:01:07AM -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> I guess we see the real culprit here. Anyone surprised it's the WAL?
So what? Are you planning to suggest people to turn fsync=false?
I just had a person lose 3 days of data on some tables because of that,
even when checkpoints were 5 minutes apart. With fsync off, there's no
work _at all_ going on, not just the WAL -- heap/index file fsync at
checkpoint is also skipped. This is no good.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"In a specialized industrial society, it would be a disaster
to have kids running around loose." (Paul Graham)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-07-29 14:00:38 | Re: BUG #1797: Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan |
| Previous Message | Magno Leite | 2005-07-29 12:52:45 | BUG #1797: Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan |